Multitudes under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot would not be suppressed in holding religious meetings? Were they not discriminated against?
Have you read the Humanist Manifesto..either 1 or 2? It does declare certain mandates.
It may not be written down on paper to kill in the name of atheism but since communism (in its purest form) and atheism go hand in hand killing in the name of atheism is what is really taking place despite not being explicitly stated.
Then again the real question may be what person (besides Karl Marx) is a "real Communist"?

Multitudes under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot would not be suppressed in holding religious meetings? Were they not discriminated against?

You're confusing Marx's ideal of Communism with a couple tyrannies which claimed to be Communist. This is similar to confusing the ideal of Democracy with North Korea, which claims to be the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." A tyrant saying, "My nation is Communist!" is no different -- no more compelling or meaningful -- than him saying, "My nation is Democratic!" The Theory of Communism flat out declares that nations like the U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, and so forth were in no state to adopt Communism, lacking as they did the super-abundance of goods and services required to leap from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. That tells us all we need to know: these dictators were not ardent followers of Marx, they were using Marx as an excuse to do what they wanted to do. Kind of like how you'd probably argue that those who kill in Jesus' name are just using Jesus as an excuse?

Zackback wrote:

Have you read the Humanist Manifesto..either 1 or 2? It does declare certain mandates.

Humanism is not atheism. Humanism is humanism. Many humanists are also atheists. Not all atheists are humanists, and nothing about atheism in itself stems from or relies upon the "Humanist Manifesto." There are plenty of atheistic philosophies all throughout history, and none of them reflect on the others simply because they share a certain lack of one specific belief.

Zackback wrote:

It may not be written down on paper to kill in the name of atheism but since communism (in its purest form) and atheism go hand in hand killing in the name of atheism is what is really taking place despite not being explicitly stated.

You're making the same mistake over and over and over again here, Zackback: ideal X having atheism as a component does not mean that atheism motivates ideal X. Atheism is content-free, it cannot motivate anything; it is an absence, not a presence. What humanists, or self-professed "Communists," or really anyone else does doesn't reflect on atheism. Nothing reflects on atheism, because atheism isn't really a "thing." It mandates nothing; even actively opposing religion isn't something atheism demands you do.

Zackback wrote:

Then again the real question may be what person (besides Karl Marx) is a "real Communist"?

No one who has ever held actual political power, not that that has anything to do with people killing in the name of atheism.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

No belief system is a vacuum Fox. You know that. One can not be indifferent to everything.
---
The attainment then to a pure Communist state has caused the death of millions. Right?
Karl Marx: You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
Jesus never told people to kill in the sense of murdering them.

No, it's not. It might often be atheistic (though not necessarily always: Theistic Humanism is entirely possible), but it's not Atheism. "I don't believe in God," that single proposition, is Atheism. Anything above and beyond that is a separate ideology which, while it might include Atheism among its enumerated positions, is not definitive with regards to Atheism.

Have you ever heard of Samkhya? Samkhya is atheistic, yet it's not identical to Humanism. Given both of these include Atheism, yet neither is identical to the other, neither can be identical to Atheism either. This simple, obvious truth is precisely what I'm trying to get through here: philosophy X including Atheism renders philosophy x neither identical to Atheism nor representative of Atheism.

Zackback wrote:

No belief system is a vacuum Fox.

True, but Atheism is not a belief system, it is a single belief (or more precisely, a single absence of belief). If you want to talk about Humanism, talk about Humanism. If you want to talk about Communism, talk about Communism. If you want to talk about Samkhya, talk about Samkhya. But none of these things have some unique monopoly on Atheism; none of them are in themselves representative of this particular absence of belief. Doing something in the name of Humanism/Communism/Samkhya/Lokayata/etc is not equivalent to doing it in the name of Atheism.

Zackback wrote:

The attainment then to a pure Communist state has caused the death of millions. Right?

No, tyrant with particular social visions have caused the deaths of millions.

Zackback wrote:

Karl Marx: You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)

1. I quoted right from there own Manifesto and still you deny it. OK guess I can't make you see what you don't want to see.
2. Marx (the only pure Communist) still advocated murdering people. Jesus didn't.
The best example of Communism wants to murder people while the best example of Christianity says don't.
So when people say religion should be illegal it is really idiotic.

Last edited by Zackback on Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

You're still not understanding this: humanists writing a manifesto has nothing what so ever to do with atheism in and of itself, because they aren't the only atheists, nor is their movement identical to atheism. You could post the entire humanist manifesto if you liked, it would still be totally irrelevant with regards to atheism in and of itself.

Is this really so complex?

Zackback wrote:

Jesus didn't.

I'm just going to say this one time: I don't care about Jesus. You can believe whatever mythology you want, I'm not going to even try to dissuade you.

Last edited by Fox on Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Their movement is not identical with atheism?
Both deny God.
And when someone says religion is equally just as harmful as drugs it really shows a lack of understanding of what those who professed no religion have done.

Samkhya denies God too, but it's obviously distinct from Humanism. Your reasoning is completely fallacious here, as I've already explained. You can either own up to that, or the conversation can simply end.

Zackback wrote:

And when someone says religion is equally just as harmful as drugs it really shows a lack of understanding of what those who professed no religion have done.

Too complex an issue to even begin seriously discussing with you until you own up to the fallacious nature of your current reasoning. I won't bash my head against a wall.

Zackback wrote:

Are you denying that Jesus ever lived?

I'm not having that discussion with you. Believe in whatever mythology you want. I don't care.

You do realize that the "a-" prefix in "atheism" literally means the same thing, right?

I have explained this previously. I believe it was during your tenure on this forum, but if not, you can go back and search for the posts. I'm not having that conversation again. My patience for this kind of quibbling has reached zero: the etymology of the word is crystal clear, and I refuse to be pestered.

1. What points would the followers of Samkhya disagree with the Humanist Manifesto 2?
2. Thanks for your mythological approach to the historicity of the person of Jesus. So easy to classify him as a myth rather than dealing with the historical evidence that proves He actually existed.
Myths die hard.

Last edited by Zackback on Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:27 pm; edited 2 times in total

You do realize that the "a-" prefix in "atheism" literally means the same thing, right?

I hope you realize they don't, much the same as immoral and amoral are not equivalent.

A- is a neutral negation prefix. Im- is an opposition prefix. You're proving my point here: amoral is merely the absence of morality, while immoral is that which is opposite to morality. One who is amoral simply lacks morality; one who is atheistic merely lacks theism.

1. What points would the followers of Samkhya disagree with the Humanist Manifesto 2?

The quote you posted, for starters: although Samkhya is atheistic, it's still a religion. If you take a glance at the link I provided, you'll quickly see why the position in question is incompatible with the raw empiricist approach of your average atheistic humanist: "pure, nonattributive consciousness" is not an empirically-supported notion, for example, nor is Moksha a Humanistic notion.

Zackback wrote:

2. Thanks for your mythological approach to the historicity of the person of Jesus. So easy to classify him as a myth rather than dealing with the historical evidence that proves He actually existed.
Myths die hard.

You do realize that the "a-" prefix in "atheism" literally means the same thing, right?

I hope you realize they don't, much the same as immoral and amoral are not equivalent.

A- is a neutral negation prefix. Im- is an opposition prefix. You're proving my point here: amoral is merely the absence of morality, while immoral is that which is opposite to morality. One who is amoral simply lacks morality; one who is atheistic merely lacks theism.

Pardon me. Here I was thinking the discussion was about concepts, and not prescriptive etymologies.